A Promising Piece of the Puzzle: Human Dignity and the Role of Section 1 of the Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this brief piece, I want to take up Major’s invitation to think about the “puzzle” and the “promise” of human dignity, but from a different perspective. In particular, I want to consider whether any negative implications of adopting a conception of human dignity that encompasses the elderly offender who is sentenced to die in prison can be rationalized within the broader constitutional framework. My suggestion is that the tension relating to the “young” and “elderly” offenders may be better addressed by focusing on the role of section 1 of the Charter. While that provision received negligible mention in Bissonnette, it may be used to justify sentencing elderly offenders to effectively die in prison for heinous crimes like murder because any other approach would fail to adequately deter others, who are similarly situated, from committing such crimes. As I explain, this framework falls back on early recognition by the Supreme Court that utilitarian arguments for increasing punishment are properly considered as justifications, under section 1, for imposing what are otherwise “cruel and unusual treatments or punishments.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".